I would particularly like you to pay attention to this hideous fucknuts as he kicks off his interview; at about 22 seconds in, this nannying statist shitehawk actually says...

I am a libertarian by nature...

Oh really? You're one of those supporters of "libertarian paternalism", I suppose? Fucking hell, I wish you cunting medicos would stop perverting the word "libertarian", you disgusting totalitarian: why don't you fuck off and die? Or, at the very fucking least, shut your fucking face and get on with your job, i.e. patching people up. You shit.

What is it about doctors and their "I know better than you attitude"? I think, were I Grand High Benevolent Dictator of Britain, that I might be tempted to ban doctors from ever speaking in public. That's not very libertarian, I know, but I feel that it would do us all the world of good.

To be fair to whichever Humphries it is hosting the programme, he does quite a good job of defending liberty; he quotes John Stuart Mill's harm principle at the idiot professor, and also lets the egregious turd tie himself into knots over his plan to ban smoking in cars. It's worth listening to just to hear Maryon-Davis trying to defend his specious logic. The cunt.

The second biggest item—£859,010—is listed as "Membership fees and subscriptions", so tell me: what kind of a cunt is actually a member of this disgusting organisation?

And why the fuck is Professor Alan Maryon-Davis allowed to pollute my airwaves? Shut the fuck up, you authoritarian cunt.

UPDATE: it seems that I was right. A commenter has looked more closely at the report and discovered that the grants came from various public bodies, including £1 million from the Teaching Public Health Network—which is entirely funded by the Department of Health.

So, I think that we can take it as read that what Maryon-Davis is advocating will pretty soon be government policy. And given that he is describing himself as "a libertarian by nature", I'd lay evens on it becoming Tory policy too. It's just the kind of wrong-headed, fluffy arsehole policy position that Call Me Dave would love.

* I have an MP3 recording of this, which I shall post up if the Beeb remove the Today interview.

Why is the term 'Libertarian' bandied around with so many different meanings? On the one hand we have Cameron defining such as close to anarchy, on the other we have this prick saying that he's still a Libertarian despite advocating restrictions on liberty across the board.

I would not mind Alan Maryon-Davis if he were a bit more honest about himself. There is nothing of the libertarian about him.

He wants a headline, but the cunt hasn't cured cancer yet, so he can fuck right off.

You get the impression that once he's finished with fags and booze, he'll want to interfere with sex and bottom wiping. We can fasttrack that by his coming over here and giving me a loving session of oral sex, followed by 'round the world'.

That is indeed correct, I am a left wing libertarian, and yes, I am a social democrat. You are also correct that I object to the policies of your party for not being truly libertarian. It is good to know that there are others like me and that I'm not alone on the matter.

I take it, however, that you consider the term left wing libertarian a misnomer. The tone of your post and your use of the term "Left-libertarianism" in an attempt to class people who are left wing and Libertarian as separate from pure libertarianism indicate that quite plainly.

But yes, allow me to back up my point. You believe in reducing the size of the state, and that doing so will make people freer. However, what you forget is that the state has a duty to protect people, to make sure that everyone is above a certain quality of life. However, if you reduce the state to the levels that your party wishes, it will be unable to do that.

You support demolishing the NHS and essentially crippling the welfare state. You believe in getting rid of the state pension.

These measures will indeed reduce the size of the state, and if you consider there to be a direct correlation between the size of the state and the freedom of the people, then you have succeeded, however, if you look at the world in a way which isn't black and white you will see that your policies will leave people unable to get healthcare because they cannot afford it, you will see people unable to feed their families because the state refuses to give them a workable amount of money you will see people with have no assurances that they will be able to cope financially when older.

Am I saying that the welfare state or NHS or the state pension system is perfect? I will accept that in instances they have failed in their duties. This is not due to inherent flaws, however, but rather because they have been messed around with aimlessly and bloated beyond what they need to be.

And that is why I do not like the brand of Libertarianism your party supports, it puts anger towards the state before the health and happiness of the people in the name of freedom.

I would also like to point out to Dick Puddlecote that I am not agreeing with Maryon-Davis' views, but merely stating that just because you can see what Libertarianism isn't that doesn't mean what you support is inherently Libertarian. And if you object to myself posting anonymously, very well, I shall oblige and give myself an identity.

Thank you for that. First, I view compulsory collectivism as being anathema to libertarianism: they are complete opposites: as such, I view anyone who calls themselves a "left libertarian" with a great deal of suspicion.

Second, when trying to propose practical, workable policies that would allow some reasonable transition, we looked at places that worked.

The health policy has yet to be properly formulated, but it is likely to be a mix of Hong Kong and France. It cannot be a bad thing to separate provider and payer in a health system -- in fact, every other country in the world does it.

Our education system proposes a voucher system, modelled on the one which demonstrably works in Sweden. Will that make people more or less ignorant? I would propose -- looking at the literacy figures -- that introducing choice and removing government will, in fact, improve matters. The Economist agrees (behind a pay wall: I'll see if I can dig the relevant bit out of my archives).

The Faculty leases the building [4 St Andrews Place NW1 4LB] at a peppercorn rent from the College which, in turn, leases it and the rest of the terrace from the Crown Estate

OK the Crown Estate which according to their charter holds the land in trust and works it for the public good all proceeds going to the Treasury then rents the land to the Royal College of Physicians which then gives these fuckwits an NW1 address for a fucking peppercorn.

B.I.D. "However, what you forget is that the state has a duty to protect people, to make sure that everyone is above a certain quality of life."

A certain quality of life? No it does not have that "duty". To do that allows the individual to abdicate their responsibilities, as we see about us now in Welfarism. If you think there is a duty and think the majority agrees with you, there would be nothing to stop you funding from your now untaxed income voluntary groups to take care of said people.

Your money. Your choice.

Fact is I strongly suspect that you secretly believe that the majority do not agree with you and even those who do most won't put their money where their mouth is (Toynbee & Co.).

Libertarians DO believe that people, once freed from the constant cosh of taxation WILL begin to be more charitable and consider their fellow men. Their spending will be less, granted, but my goodness in the round it will be far more focused, effective responsive and accountable.

As DK says, many so-called "Left Libertarians" have at the centre a desire to carry out enforced collectivisation. THey are in fact in denial about their Communist tendencies but know for sure that that term is a busted flush so grab for the nearest, trendiest fig leaf.

We'll have to ban bees and wasps too. Ever had one get into your car in the summer as you drive along? Much more dangerous than a bloody fag.

I expect smoking to be completely banned by the EU (I used to smoke, but not filthy cancer inducing cigarettes, but wonderfully benign and harmless cigars and pipe tobacco...........actually you know tobacco groweers in the US who cure their own and smoke it don't have the incidence of lung cancer that smokers of commercial ciggies do. I reckon extra carcinogens are added via the paper and oxidising agents),although they will still give grants to Greek tobacco farmers who produce such vile tobacco it can only be sold to Africans. Such a caring EU n'est ce pas?

We are all liberals these days and we can be divided into two broad groups: those who say we believe in liberty, and those who actually do.

Among the first group, there are three main types: those who resent others' personal liberty, those who resent others' economic liberty, and those who resent both. Otherwise known as conservatives, socialists and fascists.

AMD (breathlessly): "...The government can be a bit bolder. With our consent! The government isn't them up there dropping it on us down here. Done through parliament! With our consent! And we can shape the rules and regulations so that we can make the environment less tempting for us..."

He seems to think that if something is 'done through parliament', it's with our consent. I never consented to the smoking ban.

H: "But again that's for us to decide...!"

AMD: "It is for us decide, but I think it is for us to decide collectively, working with our local government and working with our national government to try to arrive at sensible rules and regulations, nothing too extreme. Something which can help us save ourselves from ourselves. Because clearly just information and campaigns and advice aren't enough. We also need to help to shape the environment..."

H: "Shape the environment!? It rather sounds like we are being forced to do things we wouldn't choose to do for ourselves. That's when it gets to be wrong."

The filthy little cunt seems to think that I should get local government permission before I go to the pub for 5 or 6 pints, and then go home and shag my girlfriend. Or anyone else's girlfriend.

It's quite clear that the little bastard wants people to be made to live 'healthy' lives, since advice "isn't enough". Why should I suppose that he knows any better than I do what is and isn't 'healthy'? Because the arsehole is a doctor? Doctors have been making mistakes since time immemorial.

He should be fired from his job. His fake charity should be closed down. He should be struck off. And he should exiled naked and penniless to Antarctica.

I normally enjoy your rants but I feel that describing the majority of physicians as cunts is rather unfortunate; we have to fund the colleges if we wish to have any career progression.

Membership of the Royal College of Physicians (or Surgeons, or General Practitioners) is required for the majority of junior doctors in Great Britain before they become registrars- Membership is conferred by passing exams and then coughing up a lot of money and is required for career progression (to become a consultant).

COI relative a member of the ROyal College of Physicians, all-be-it not the Faculty of Public Health, working to become a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons (£950 and more exams to go).

The Royal College of Physicians is something that must be completely and utterly destroyed.

Look. These little shits are now trying to blackmail us. If we don't conform to their notions of a 'healthy lifestyle', they feel perfectly free to deny us (smokers, drinkers, fat people) treatment. And that's blackmail. That's a protection racket. That's what it's all about now.

Look, Mr MadDoc, a doctor isn't really any different from a plumber or a motor mechanic. How would you feel if you called in a plumber , and he said, "You've been using too much hot water. You should cut down on it. And if you don't, I won't repair your leaking radiators next time"? You'd think he was a self-important, jumped-up little cunt, wouldn't you?

Or if you took your car into a garage, and the mechanic said, "See those wheels? You've been cornering too fast, and wearing off rubber from the outside. Don't bring this rustbucket back to me until you've learned to drive better." You'd think he was another little cunt too, wouldn't you?

Well, that's how more and more of us are feeling about the medical profession. They're a bunch of jumped-up little cunts who feel they're entitled to order everybody else around.

But they are essentially no different from plumbers or motor mechanics. They provide a service. (And they don't provide it very well.) And the little cunts have been getting above themselves recently, as they have been trying to dictate to their customers what they should and shouldn't do.

And they need to be put very firmly in their place. They aren't here to to tell us what to do. It's for us to tell them what to do.

They are going to be put in their place. They are going to learn that that they are working in the service of humanity, just like everybody else.

I'm with Frank Davis. Doctors need a big slap. When did they stop curing us and instead start dictating how we should live our lives?

If they are paid by the NHS, we are the bosses. Many are paid by us and seem to have completely forgotten that.

Restrict health entirely from those that pay? That is a protection racket pure and simple. Give the choice of an opt-out from national insurance then you can dictate where you distribute care as much as you like.

Until such time as that is an option, MadDoc, you are disgusting in even thinking about denying treatment based on morality.

I don't give a shit how much money it costs to become a doctor. You treat 100% of the public or else you may as well abolish the NHS. It is, after all, designed to treat everyone no matter their ability to pay. By the same token, it should treat regardless of lifestyle.